A DNA plan that goes too far

Published
4:00 am PDT, Tuesday, October 5, 2004

PROPONENTS of Proposition 69 argue that this state needs to create an "all-felon database" of DNA samples to help solve crimes.

In fact, California has been collecting blood samples from convicted offenders since 1984. It now has forensic DNA profiles of 245,000 felons convicted of sexual assault and other violent crimes -- and the matching of this database with biological evidence at crime scenes routinely produces "cold hits" that result in convictions and exonerations.

A DNA database of convicted felons is an appropriate and valuable tool for our justice system.

Prop. 69, however, would dramatically expand the database to require a DNA sample at the time of any felony arrest -- even for shoplifting, trespassing or writing a bad check.

Opponents cite a number of legitimate concerns about the lowering of the threshold for DNA collection.

As a practical matter, there are reasons to question the cost and efficacy of adding hundreds of thousands of DNA samples to an already overburdened system.

But the more fundamental flaw with Prop. 69 is its use of an arrest -- rather than a conviction -- to sanction the drawing of a DNA sample for permanent storage. DNA is more than an identity marker. It contains highly sensitive information about an individual -- including things you may not even know about yourself, such as susceptibility to heart disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and cancer.

Proponents of Prop. 69 insist that the DNA samples, collected by a simple mouth swab, could not be used for anything beyond identification. They contend that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear.

However, proponents are plainly misleading when they refer to their goal as an "all-felon database" similar to those in 34 other states. Felons are convicted of crimes.

Starting in 2009, this measure would require DNA samples to be taken on all felony arrests. It allows law enforcement to send the samples to public or private laboratories for processing, claiming that increased criminal penalties would cover the cost. It is important to remember that, each year, about 50,000 felony arrests in this state never result in charges.

Under this measure, the DNA of a person wrongly arrested or acquitted would not be automatically removed from the database. Expunging of DNA records would require a court order -- and an individual would not have the ability to appeal the court's decision.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat who opposes Prop. 69, calls it an "assault on the privacy of innocent Californians."

This measure would have been far more appealing -- and potentially more effective -- if it were limited to felony convictions, as is the standard in most other states with DNA databases.

Americans should be wary of a government attempt to build a vastly expanded database of personal information without a greater rationale and stricter safeguards.